= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
lol. Hate speech laws are primarily about punishing ethnocentric white people, secondarily for protecting very specific minorities. Even when written so as to protect people of a certain profession or class or education level or political ideology as they are in my country they are never used that way.
An example: Do you think that saying you want to take stuff from or harm rich people without getting into specifics about a particular person will ever get you into legal trouble?
I was talking in general, not about you specifically. In fact I much appreciate your out-of-the-box view on many subjects, and I can guess why you would argue against any form of censorship here, slippery slopes and all that.
Example of hate-speech laws being used
I think your example is rather atypical to be honest at least in the wider West. Emma West being the more typical one. Very much like with hate crime laws there is controversy whether hate speech against white people even is hate speech.
What would be considered unacceptable for one group is not unacceptable for another. The star of the recent popular movie Django Unchained, Jamie Fox joked for example:
in light of his other comments this is interesting
Whether this combined is ominous, righteous or innocuous depends on your model of the world. That how such laws are applied depends heavily on what kind of model of the world judges or police officers are likely to use is hardly disputable however.
Oh, I agree fully that such laws are problematic and open to abuse, and that it might well be better for no such laws to exist at all. Nonetheless they exist and should occur as a (possibly very low) cost in the calculation of the expected utility of advocating violence.
I imagine it depends a lot on the extent to which the legal jurisdiction I'm in at the time is influenced by rich people, and the extent to which those rich people take my having said that seriously. In most jurisdictions and for most audiences, very likely not, unless I'm a far more compelling speaker than I think I am.